Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

I'm sure he'd be surprised to learn I'm him or he's me.  Your opinion of me is as meaningless as your diversion to your physical well being or lack of it.  I'm sure if this were your thread you would have blocked me already, speaking of childish.

Have I mentioned your option to ignore one as intolerant of you as me?

You speak as if perhaps you were that rather obnoxious account whose name began with H. Whoever you are, you definitely reassure me that if I blocked you, I was right to do so and probably very wrong to unblock you to give you another chance, because you don't deserve it. You clearly imply that I must have unblocked you several times and I can only apologise for my stupidity in doing so.

I think that by now it has been demonstrated that you are the troll and that Noodles isn't. For what it's worth, you're blocked. Goodbye.

If i may, this thread is very informative and, at times, comical. I can appreciate both. I rarely interject my opinion on the matter because I wouldn’t articulate it well. However, i do find it interesting. That being said, i fear the thread could be locked due to excessive personal insults or the topic of religion and none of us want that. Let’s get back to the OP, please. Edit: And please know I’m not targeting this to anyone specifically. 

Here's my thought on the topic at hand, uninformed as I might be in things like QM.

It seems to have been suggested that determinism vs randomness argues for either design or no design which in itself suggests god or no god which I don't agree with if that it what is being suggested.

The case for determinism does not require a creator or designer.  It only requires that the nature of things has a strict underlying structure.  Call it atomic or weak and strong forces if you like.  It seems logical to me that the universe with such structure would automatically be classified as deterministic.  If energy and or particles at the smallest level always act a certain way then logically that would result in predicatable patterns in larger structures.  The predictability would be immensely difficult to determine but it could never be random.

Even at the highest level science has made determinations that stars act in certain ways at certain points based on age for example.  Why would it then not apply to a lower form of existence like human activity and thought?  Are the energies that make up our being and minds any different than the stuff that stars are made of?

I'm not suggesting that I believe humans do not really have choices.  Of course we do but those decisions are based on knowable activities in the energies and chemicals that make up thought.

it might exist

How did I get into this discussion?  

Ah, I see.  Well, for the record, yeah, I don't think Optimissed and adult conversation generally run in the same circles...but that's certainly not news to anyone who has been here for years.

That's a fairly generally held opinon in my circle of miscreants.

And in a world where six-year olds are counted as adults, you're both definitely correct.

The idea is not that you should hold "adult opinions" but, whatever your opinions happen to be, you should discuss them without habitually using insults. Since both of you habitually use insulting and demeaning comments as a normal means of discussion, you can expect to get some of your own back and even so, it will clearly be seen who argues like that as a matter of course and who tries to gang up with any convenient fellow troll.

I genuinely like Noodles and so do others. It would be nice if he were able to move his thoughts forward but when you've been grabbed by religious cultists, that isn't always easy. If you like someone, you don't see them as a troll. More like a slightly irritating but pleasant person and Fester shouldn't have made his completely gratuitous attack on him.

A word about belief in the paranormal. There are definitely those who see such things as childish, gullible or anti-scientific. There are equally those who study such phenomena. However, there are gullible people on both sides of the wire. That aside and no matter who is right, discussing such matters or, indeed, any matter, like bad-tempered children or facetious semi-adults doesn't help your cause, whichever of those sub-groups you happen to occupy. Someone who sides with a person like Fester has truly shown his colours in a very bad light.

I had to look up what a wave function was and now I am way dumber than when I started.

I have never claimed to be "smarter" than most. However, if I understand something well enough to see that its foundational premise(s) derives from heliocentrism then I might challenge it. Over the years I have found many that simply refuse to even go there and find it far easier to insult rather than challenge their belief(s) or me in whatever it may be. 

For the record, I have absolutely No Idea What the shape/form of the earth is, for I have NEVER seen it in its entirety. 

Those who wish to believe in NASA etc. & "outer space pics of earth" have simply not done their homework. It is not that they can easily discern those pics are fakes or that NASA fakes their little "space adventures" but rather what the Lie(s) reveal that scares the Hell out of them. Thus, attack anyone who doesn't agree/exposes NASA etc.

This guy said it best in my opinion:

The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.

Your last paragraph describes you accurately.

    Question: Does True Randomness Actually Exist? 
     solution: Yes 

Very roughly and in my own awful words, a function is any series of results that comes from a series of values of a variable on which those results depend.

That means that if a function of x is y = 2x then for values of x of 1, 2, 3 ,4 etc, the values of the function are 2, 4, 6, 8. If we get a trigonometrical function then we can get a wave-form as the result (a wavy line). A wave function might be a depiction of the positions of photons after they've "had something done to them", maybe by travelling through a slit in a barrier, as in Young's Experiment (double-slit).

So the function would be a waveform and that's the result of the cause of the function, which is shining photons at slits in a barrier.

I've deliberately kept it simple, which helps me too. I know that Elroch has far more expertise than I do, in explaining such things, so he can give me a mark out of ten and improve where necessary. I'm hoping for a 7/10 but not expecting it.

"Yes" is more accurate than "we don't know", which in turn is more accurate than "no".

On the other hand, "I don't know" is completely accurate if it describes the opinion of the writer, who doesn't know.

As good an opinion as any but then so is #2.

"Yes" is only more accurate if it describes the opinion of the writer, who thinks he knows.

Fester - please read that paragraph closely. He is referring to the masses i.e. the majority. Clearly something I am not and you most assuredly are. 

Clearly and most thankfully you are not "the masses'.

This topic is not about you or me or mister mutton chops.  I'll desist from further off topic banter with you or anyone else.

Good! 

I am still waiting to hear something about my posts suggesting that heliocentrism is random. 

Is it not a theory based upon perpetual countless random cosmic coincidences?